Well, yeah.
That one seems to me to be a no-brainer, and it baffles me how the denialist camp seems to be immune to the idea that relying on fossil fuels, irrespective of the CO₂ impact, is madness, and that there're very good economic reasons to spend money on research into renewables.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:58, 3 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

it's because they're lizard people who breath C02 and their blood is made from acid rain.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:00, Reply)

Shhhhhh!
Don't tell everyone.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:03, Reply)

it's something to get angry about though
and that is irresistable.

I find it annoying the other way too. I read the new civil engineer now and then, and recently there have been letters from people on the climate change subject. Regardless of what a doubter of AGW will say in their letter, the following week someone will have rabidly written in demanding that the journal no longer print letters from deniers.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:01, Reply)

It's a tricky one for editors.
No serious scientist will deny the possibility that the science is wrong; on the other hand, none will deny that the picture as we understand it is overwelmingly in favour of AGW hypotheses as correct.

At the same time, not every voice on matters of scientific importance is an important voice. What you do with the cranks is a tricky one for editors, though - and unless we start peer-reviewing letters, I guess that they're simply going to have to be printed...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:06, Reply)

it's more of a "have your say" for engineers than it is a place for scientific debate.

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:22, Reply)

renewables nuclear energy
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:01, Reply)

Both.
Nuclear is a reasonable stopgap, but renewables strike me as being a better idea on the whole. It's not like there's a shortage of wind and sun.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:03, Reply)

isn't the problem with wind and sun the efficiencies?
I'm in favour of hydro and tidal energy personally.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:09, Reply)

They should dam the Severn
and fuck the archeologists. I'd rather have power than boring old shit. If it was worth having it wouldn't have been thrown in a fucking river would it!
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:14, Reply)

Speaking as an archaeoogist, I welcome this fucking.
I do, however, object to it destroying my fishing for cod on those cold winter nights by Oldbury nuclear power station.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:16, Reply)

Glow-in-the-dark fish a bit easier to catch?

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:26, Reply)

Self-cooking, too

( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:27, Reply)

I'm going to a presentation about the latest severn barrage stuff on friday
I'll let you know what the current thinking is
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:21, Reply)

Perhaps, but that strikes me as a soluble problem.
There's a proposal for a Supergrid, for example, that'd link Saharan Africa, Norway, the North Sea, the North Atlantic, and possibly Iceland with DC cables. This would provide all of the regions power needs in principle. Sure, there's an engineering problem, but there's also good reason to think that it's eminently doable.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:16, Reply)

any engineering problem can be solved with enough money

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:21, Reply)

Yup.
And the Supergrid idea, from what I've seen, would be expensive. But possibly still a good investment.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:22, Reply)

it could indeed be a good investment
unfortunately there would be a lot of politics involved, and hence a lot of politicians....
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:24, Reply)

Renewables have a pretty big impact on the ecosystems that people like to bleat about.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:13, Reply)

You know me well enough by now to know that I don't care about public opinion.
Nuclear is better than fossil, but you still need to build the things, and concrete is a massive carbon emitter - and reactors use a lot of concrete.

You're going to get an impact on the system whatever you do (or, rather, the impact is part of the system). And not all impacts are bad: the Norfolk broads and Cambridge Fells are lauded today as environmentally precious, but they're just the result of mediaeval geoengineering (aren't they? The general point'd stand that changing an area doesn't mean damaging it.).

I'm not denying the place of nuclear - fission or potentially fusion; but I don't think that it is, or has to be, the whole story.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:20, Reply)

Aren't the new proposed sites for nuclear power
based on building at existing nuclear plants, e.g. Oldbury, Hinkley?

And your point about changing the landscape can also apply on a global scale with regards to climate change.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:38, Reply)

they are
but at hinkley for example, they are wanting to level a big area of farm land and pave it to make new accommodation and a park and ride for the people working on the construction. among other things.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:42, Reply)

Yes - you're right...
... but see my reply to your reply to Legless. CC isn't just about alteration - that's not a problem - but about the fact that it'll predictably diminish the quality of life of millions. There's a good welfare-based reason to worry about it.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:48, Reply)

I don't much care.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:24, Reply)